Re: How portable are the POSIX.2 regular expression routines? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: How portable are the POSIX.2 regular expression routines?
Date
Msg-id 23737.1153183153@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: How portable are the POSIX.2 regular expression routines?  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyone have an opinion on the portability of the regular expression
>> functions defined in POSIX 1003.2,

> Does Windows come with POSIX regex libs? I would be a bit surprised.

> When we discussed this at the conference I suggested to Magnus that he 
> not use regexes. When I did initdb I originally looked at using a regex 
> library, and realised that we really wouldn't need them, and the tiny 
> replacement routines I wrote would be sufficient.

All we really need is something that can handle patterns including ".*",
because that's all that is used in the patterns in "resultmap".  That
should be doable (inefficiently, but who cares) in just a few lines of
code.  I'll go for Plan B for the moment.

> BTW, we I am pretty sure we *do* need MAX_CONNECTIONS it really 
> shouldn't be too hard to implement.

Yeah, I thought the same --- you need it on a platform that won't
let you run dozens of processes under one userid.
Will take care of it.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: How portable are the POSIX.2 regular expression routines?
Next
From: "Hiroshi Saito"
Date:
Subject: Re: How portable are the POSIX.2 regular expression routines?